Jump to content

Photo

Give us client-side Anticheat.


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
188 replies to this topic

#41
UubeNubeh DaWog

UubeNubeh DaWog

    Elite

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1933 posts
  • Joined 19-August 12

OwO

 

PB has been bad from the beginning but its the best gaming has had for a long time.

 

PB has always been basic level protection against entry level cheat makers. You can still see with games nowdays with PB installed that have multiple cheat forum counterparts with popular cheats.

 

The last 8 games on Punkbusters site http://www.evenbalance.com/ have had 3 games drop PB (Battlefield, Infestation, APB) and 3 more dont even need an anti cheat because they are largely Coop/ single player (Assassins Creed black flag, Farcry 3, Assassins Creed 3) and there are multiple cheat forums for Battlefield hardline and Blacklight retribution with PB bypassing Cheats.

Last news of PB being added to a game on their site was Battlefield Hardline at Fri Jan 16 2015 12:00 so i dont know how people think these big companies think PB is relevant when they no longer use it.

 

Battlefield 4 dropped PB, Battlefield 1 uses battleye.

Infestation uses their own Anti cheat.

Rainbow 6 siege doesnt have PB

The division doesnt have PB

Ghost recon wild lands doesnt have PB

Arma 2 and 3 dont have PB

H1Z1 doesnt have PB

WoW doesnt have PB

Overwatch doesnt have PB

League of legends doesnt have PB

Call of duty hasnt had PB since black ops 3

 

You would ltiterally have a hard time finding a PunkBuster supported game in the top streamed games page on twitch.

 

The whole point is Punk Buster hasnt been relevant for a long time and gaming companies have been moving away from PB for years. Its always been bad and now we have actual options for something better.

People telling you its something that we can still use are people who have no idea about how it grew to what it was in the first place.


Edited by UubeNubeh DaWog, 16 March 2017 - 11:39 PM.

I'm actually done with this mess. Just make me a forum mod so we can have SOMEONE with some competence around here.


#42
Enjia

Enjia

    Conscript

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Joined 18-November 16

-snip-

D-does PB still have false positives though?

 

Kitty Yekaterina says different o3o



#43
UubeNubeh DaWog

UubeNubeh DaWog

    Elite

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1933 posts
  • Joined 19-August 12

D-does PB still have false positives though?

 

Kitty Yekaterina says different o3o

 

PB has had multiple occasions of false positives, larger than FF's aswell ( around 200 people each time) . I was around for two of them and there was one a short time before my time starting APB.

After that they dialed down PB a lot because it was just unreliable in general. I still had problems every now and again with PunkBuster dcing me because of driver software clashes like the ones everyone talks about.


Edited by UubeNubeh DaWog, 16 March 2017 - 11:58 PM.

I'm actually done with this mess. Just make me a forum mod so we can have SOMEONE with some competence around here.


#44
SKay

SKay

    Elite

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1215 posts
  • Joined 19-January 14

Source?


Source: Calculations done between what I said in post, and the fact that avg. time for blatants to be banned is on average, up and up. Similar to how it was before and worse.

so...
Skay is saying that FF does not falseban because it's "manual"... sure thing mate, as long as it doesn't affect you it's "110%" right.
just be open minded for once and imagine that there actually are falsepositives caused by manual FF... what would you say if you'd find out it is true?
(scenario: you got banned and you are not a cheater)
I'd really like to hear your mindset on that. what would you think and what would you do if you get ignored by support because they are so convinced of their anticheat and don't even bother with your case.


Re-read, they merely want an anti cheat that operates at a 110% success rate, not a 99% success rate like all anti cheats are able to output max. Also I've already stated that there have been false bans, everyone knows this already and G1 has admitted to it. Yet you only took out bits of that argument and then got upset because you feel you're unjustly banned. This is a discussion about anti cheats, not "what if you were legit and false banned". You're either gunna have to accept it and move on or drive yourself over the cliff.

7nEgYyJ.jpg

Characters : Union - SKay (Crim) OfficerSK (Enforcer) Citadel - SKayCrim (Crim) SKayENF (Enforcer)

If you have a question about APB, it's weapons, cars, mods and LeBoyce, PM me! I am an SPCM!

u8YLaPP.png

noob 1v1 me pls ;D


#45
FreeHenryman90

FreeHenryman90

    Conscript

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 110 posts
  • Joined 27-December 16

so...
Skay is saying that FF does not falseban because it's "manual"... sure thing mate, as long as it doesn't affect you it's "110%" right.


just be open minded for once and imagine that there actually are falsepositives caused by manual FF... what would you say if you'd find out it is true?

(scenario: you got banned and you are not a cheater)

I'd really like to hear your mindset on that. what would you think and what would you do if you get ignored by support because they are so convinced of their anticheat and don't even bother with your case.

Yeah, i'm afraid that my ban was caused by glitchy event and there is 0 cooperation from the support to take closer look at my case, listen to me first and see that there has to be misunderstanding. Once again, they don't care.



#46
Enjia

Enjia

    Conscript

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Joined 18-November 16

PB has had multiple occasions of false positives, larger than FF's aswell ( around 200 people each time) . I was around for two of them and there was one a short time before my time starting APB.

After that they dialed down PB a lot because it was just unreliable in general. I still had problems every now and again with PunkBuster dcing me because of driver software clashes like the ones everyone talks about.

@Kitty Yekaterina whats ur opinion on this?



#47
Tigrix

Tigrix

    Respected

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • Joined 20-August 14

It took Ubisoft around half a year to get BattlEye to work with Rainbow six siege and ever since it's been blast and, so far, almost completely cheat free since no developer want's to code for it since it's not feasible.  

The issue APB has is that why should they invest in it? You're not gonna get anymore people since the game is 7 years old and everyone knows how it receives no content at all, so why invest the time? 

This ^

I agree that's the problem for G1, but if they're sincere about what they're telling us (storyline: We're lauching an engine upgrade for PC, directly after playstation launch! we're not giving up on the PC!) ... well, if they're sincere, then they need to prove it and step 1 would be adding a goshdarn decent client-side anticheat ... in which battleye imo (and many others that i see) is by far the best choice. (best doesn't always mean it's the most expensive... look at the games they support so far, it's not the biggest franchises or rich companys, their real first milestone was a mod-game, dayZ).

(idk why so many people are arguing PB ... we all agree(even all the quotes i made in original post), Battleye is by far superior, but at least PB was better than no client-side, imo and regardless of an xmas event that got fked --- however it'd be nice to see G1 who disabled PB entirely, now introduce a superior anti-cheat like BE or at the very least explain the goshdarn playerbase what's going on... you can't just disable your only client-side anti-cheat and pretend the pc playerbase will behave itself rofl)

Of course, in the current state of things -- with silent staff and PC playerbase rotting away .. it's a lot to ask for G1 to prove their intentions.

But if we don't ask, then who will.


Edited by Tigrix, 17 March 2017 - 03:15 AM.

https://www.youtube....h?v=STpXy7gXzC4

Being online doesn't mean you're suddenly not responsible for who you are. Embarrassing, threatening, harassing, attacking and insulting - based on gender, race, nationality or simple difference of opinion? ...This shows who you are as a person, sitting behind the monitor. You think nobody will care? Think again.

The age of Cancer is over. The dawn of Justice has come.


#48
FreeSnubnose

FreeSnubnose

    Initiate

  • Members
  • 19 posts
  • Joined 14-March 17

 

Re-read, they merely want an anti cheat that operates at a 110% success rate, not a 99% success rate like all anti cheats are able to output max. Also I've already stated that there have been false bans, everyone knows this already and G1 has admitted to it. Yet you only took out bits of that argument and then got upset because you feel you're unjustly banned. This is a discussion about anti cheats, not "what if you were legit and false banned". You're either gunna have to accept it and move on or drive yourself over the cliff.

 

well from what you've written I got the impression you only accept the fact that there WAS falsebans but they have been resolved and there are none anymore... especially because of this:

"Since then the automated process has been turned back off and all bans are manually actuated, hence why there's been a vast reduction in bans/day. In short, they want to get it 110% right. Not 99% right, which is what all anti-cheat programs will give you."

 

 

"they want to get it 110% right" sounds alot like "they are doing everything to prevent falsepositives" which also sounds like "there are no false positive since it's manual again"

 

 

well, sorry I got you wrong here then...

yes, I've been banned unjustified. and I'm having a god damn hard time to make G1 notice since their support is a joke and they don't seem to care about what people are saying...


Edited by FreeSnubnose, 17 March 2017 - 09:16 AM.


#49
xertioN

xertioN

    Conscript

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 192 posts
  • Joined 15-July 15

 

Battlefield 4 dropped PB, Battlefield 1 uses battleye.

 

That is news to me, I don't believe it

 

WTB client side anti-cheat APB...

 

We shall see if anything happens


AMG, 3K


#50
Rebelliousness

Rebelliousness

    Respected

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 654 posts
  • Joined 24-January 12

"...Yet you only took out bits of that argument and then got upset because you feel you're unjustly banned. This is a discussion about anti cheats, not "what if you were legit and false banned". You're either gunna have to accept it and move on or drive yourself over the cliff."

And you wonder why "other" people are making alleged "death threats" when you seem to be doing the same thing. But hey, I'm chill, it is after all a "killing game" and you can't really have an honest "death threat' against a pixel persona.


 "Ignoring the PC base for these garbage ports will have been the primary reason for the demise of this company tbh."-Schlonganola


#51
SKay

SKay

    Elite

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1215 posts
  • Joined 19-January 14

And you wonder why "other" people are making alleged "death threats" when you seem to be doing the same thing. But hey, I'm chill, it is after all a "killing game" and you can't really have an honest "death threat' against a pixel persona.


Of course you can decide to misread what I say, I am making a statement that he will drive himself off the cliff (remember a figurative cliff) if he gets bent over heels over the issue.

Of course, I am also very chill, I can at least not misinterpret my fellow man and try and be edgy at the same time.

7nEgYyJ.jpg

Characters : Union - SKay (Crim) OfficerSK (Enforcer) Citadel - SKayCrim (Crim) SKayENF (Enforcer)

If you have a question about APB, it's weapons, cars, mods and LeBoyce, PM me! I am an SPCM!

u8YLaPP.png

noob 1v1 me pls ;D


#52
Garbo

Garbo

    Conscript

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Joined 30-January 17
So SPCMs actually are employed by APB?
I always thought they were just players meant to help new players.

I guess you learn something new every day.
SKay, how much do you get payed to play APB, and did you have to move to California for this job?


Also, stop with the baseless claims please. You are talking out of your arse.

Edited by Garbo, 17 March 2017 - 01:59 PM.


#53
Enjia

Enjia

    Conscript

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Joined 18-November 16

Since then the automated process has been turned back off and all bans are manually actuated, hence why there's been a vast reduction in bans/day. In short, they want to get it 110% right. Not 99% right, which is what all anti-cheat programs will give you.

Wouldn't G1 have to say something about updates on FF such as reverting it to manual, like they announced FF going automatic? I mean, I guess they don't want actual cheaters to know more information on current FF, but regardless; G1 has been quite silent so we don't know for sure.



#54
Rebelliousness

Rebelliousness

    Respected

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 654 posts
  • Joined 24-January 12

Uhhh..

Re-read, they merely want an anti cheat that operates at a 110% success rate, not a 99% success rate 

So they don't want an anticheat that operates at 99%... so they turn off clientside anticheat and turn off automated bans, resulting in manual bans performed by the 1 staff member which is also technically a grandmother and probably needs to wear bifocals... and you ADMIT the bans/day have dropped... perhaps because the population drop had become so alarming...

So now you have an anticheat that decreased performance so it only works, figuratively at perhaps... oh... say... 20% now instead of 99%

Brilliant! (insert sarcasm here).  

...and cheating has become so endemic that the low population has dropped even MORE alarmingly.

What a company!~
grandma-finds-the-internet.png


Edited by Rebelliousness, 18 March 2017 - 10:53 AM.

 "Ignoring the PC base for these garbage ports will have been the primary reason for the demise of this company tbh."-Schlonganola


#55
Gro

Gro

    Elite

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1090 posts
  • Joined 15-October 11

While I agree on the subject, I'm not sure they are capable of doing something. At least not until notorious engine upgrade.


Edited by Gro, 19 March 2017 - 09:46 AM.


#56
FreeHenryman90

FreeHenryman90

    Conscript

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 110 posts
  • Joined 27-December 16

I would say the opposite is true for false positives, and human behaviour, while yes unpredictable, can be quantified and rationalized; a human simply cannot do certain things that a cheating program can allow one to do. Google into it and you'll see that PB has done quite a number of false bans on nearly all games it's been a part of, not just this one. BF4 or Hardline are two prime examples; both were bypassed in Beta and have had cheaters running rampant while guys with paint programmes like photoshop etc getting accidentally banned because PB decided that it doesn't like art (in other words its signature detection software decided to flag Photoshop or GIMP)

 

Signature detection needs a constant updated database along with some rudimentary file integrity checking and memory scanning abilities, but PB still doesn't have the greatest memory detection, and on games like RO2/RS, BF4 etc. (not like ancient games, games from the last 3-4 years) it really is so haphazard in its choice to kick those who've just got normal programs running in the background that it would've never gotten off of the ground. And with an engine as old as APB's, you're looking at ancient signature detection methods that wouldn't even hold a candle to more modern detection methods.

 

FF has huge problems, lets make no mistake here, it's not perfect. It is sloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow. Very, very slow. It's the way it was designed, nothing really can help it further along. However it also suffers from being unable to flex it's muscles fully, because G1 requires nearly all bans be manually processed, because people will cry foul over false bans publicly and will shoot the confidence the company has in the software, and it already has (remember that 71 false ban wave? It was because the perf was set just a hair into a small possibility a human could do a certain action (not going to say which it was) but it was publicly acknowledged and fixed, but most of them have already ended up on the FF list again under manual review). Since then the automated process has been turned back off and all bans are manually actuated, hence why there's been a vast reduction in bans/day. In short, they want to get it 110% right. Not 99% right, which is what all anti-cheat programs will give you.

 

But coming from my own experience, PB has a lot more problems, hence why I am so hostile to it, it just doesn't work. It's like DRM gone wrong. (I look at you SecuROM)

Since you have inside information about FF and what it can detect, can it detect things like wallhack? Everyone knows that this game has this issue with transparent walls, especially The Beacon district has this issue. It could possibly cause false bans for example when you can see other players running towards doorways behind the wall, so you can react really fast when you see them coming and fire them, which makes it look like to be beyond human reflexes, possibly even aim and trying to shoot them instinctively near you through walls.


Edited by Henryman90v2, 18 March 2017 - 04:29 PM.


#57
Garbo

Garbo

    Conscript

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Joined 30-January 17
Yes fairfight can be configured to monitor any set of stats including player behavior and movement relative to their oppisition. It then compares that behavior against the behavior of the game's population as a whole. So as long as most players are NOT using wallhacks... oh wait, I think I found the problem lol

Edited by Garbo, 18 March 2017 - 03:03 PM.


#58
Ch1ck

Ch1ck

    Conscript

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 247 posts
  • Joined 11-December 11

Everything can be detected using server-sided anti-cheat, but the math has to be correct which isn't the case with APB and FF.



#59
FreeHenryman90

FreeHenryman90

    Conscript

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 110 posts
  • Joined 27-December 16

Everything can be detected using server-sided anti-cheat, but the math has to be correct which isn't the case with APB and FF.

What was this company thinking when they decided to pick FF out of every other option out there, privacy?



#60
Ch1ck

Ch1ck

    Conscript

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 247 posts
  • Joined 11-December 11

What was this company thinking when they decided to pick FF out of every other option out there, privacy?

FF isn't bad, it's just not suited for APB. There was a period where they were 'fine tuning' it, but that was BS. They were not fine tuning anything, just changing some values in algorithms and obviously fudged it up since FF went full retard. That's what happens when you don't know how your game and anti-cheat works.



#61
アリア

アリア

    Conscript

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 341 posts
  • Joined 27-October 14
Some one please tell me how a blantant cheater could cheat for more than months and not get bann?

cnHtW4P.jpg


#62
Sadira

Sadira

    Descended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3207 posts
  • Joined 03-May 11

Some one please tell me how a blantant cheater could cheat for more than months and not get bann?

That's a question left for the admins, honestly. It makes no sense.


NMS5SG2.jpg

RTW Veteran/CBT Veteran || Wife of Neonis || Got art to show off? Come to this thread! 
hi im sadira. overwatch trash atm.


#63
FreeHenryman90

FreeHenryman90

    Conscript

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 110 posts
  • Joined 27-December 16

FF isn't bad, it's just not suited for APB. There was a period where they were 'fine tuning' it, but that was BS. They were not fine tuning anything, just changing some values in algorithms and obviously fudged it up since FF went full retard. That's what happens when you don't know how your game and anti-cheat works.

List me games where it has worked perfectly.



#64
Ch1ck

Ch1ck

    Conscript

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 247 posts
  • Joined 11-December 11

List me games where it has worked perfectly.

 

I just said it's not bad, not that it works perfectly. But for example, I play BF1 daily. Each and every single match there are at least 2-3 "GLOBAL MSG" FF bans, but then again the playerbase is like 1000x bigger, thus the more occasional bans.

 

To make server-sided anti-cheat perfect, it requires a lot of time understanding game values and how they could be handled properly. In the other words, mommy ton of testing with cheats turned on and off. You can't make proper server-sided anti-cheat if you don't analyze and compare data when using and when not using a cheat.

 

There is an NTEC script circling around cheating sites that fires a shot each 195ms (which will result in the fastest TTK). It isn't hard to track TTK and STK server-sided, and at the end of each mission calculate the average and compare with a 'fastest human time possible' (don't know how to say it otherwise). Humans misfire, computers don't. There would be an easily recognizable pattern when using certain cheats, such as mentioned one.



#65
FreeHenryman90

FreeHenryman90

    Conscript

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 110 posts
  • Joined 27-December 16

I just said it's not bad, not that it works perfectly. But for example, I play BF1 daily. Each and every single match there are at least 2-3 "GLOBAL MSG" FF bans, but then again the playerbase is like 1000x bigger, thus the more occasional bans.

 

To make server-sided anti-cheat perfect, it requires a lot of time understanding game values and how they could be handled properly. In the other words, mommy ton of testing with cheats turned on and off. You can't make proper server-sided anti-cheat if you don't analyze and compare data when using and when not using a cheat.

 

There is an NTEC script circling around cheating sites that fires a shot each 195ms (which will result in the fastest TTK). It isn't hard to track TTK and STK server-sided, and at the end of each mission calculate the average and compare with a 'fastest human time possible' (don't know how to say it otherwise). Humans misfire, computers don't. There would be an easily recognizable pattern when using certain cheats, such as mentioned one.


Edited by FreeHenryman90, 20 March 2017 - 04:43 AM.


#66
LilyV3

LilyV3

    You're being trolled

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18229 posts
  • Joined 21-August 12

Well the real question is.

Is it financially feasible for RP to get a good client side anticheat?

I think most of us can agree that it would be nice to have but even though I don't have a clue what RP's financials look like I can only imagine that it's not that great.

 

Why should apb even pay for it? The industries most worthy badge is giving apb a proper cheatfree environment. The Anticheat companies should offer that for free because whoever managed to succeed is like best in class. And thats going to be a sales worthy tropy for them. Seriously, I enver have been in any game so cehat infested over such a long time as APB is. most other games were only temporary that bad, whe they were new and such. But APB is the prime Hive of cheating scum.

 

 

quote on BE:  "The cheater-plagued DayZ community has confirmed many times that cheating has been reduced to an absolute minimum ever since the new proactive BE system was introduced in February 2015. Mission: Success! Being passionate about protecting games for almost 11 years, we are looking forward to assisting game developers in their fight against selfish cheaters for many decades to come. "

 

Give us Battleye !

 

P.S. regarding punkbuster being "faulty" in apb banning "wrong" people.

Someone care to explain me how is Punkbuster accepted by all huge game companies such as Ubisoft and Battlefield with gaming population of millions of players, but its so "bad" for genius APB with its barely 3000 gaming population.

 

How come Punkbuster working properly for well known games but its suddenly badly programmed for barely known APB ?

 

Someone obviously wants so badly to make us believe PB is crap. Why? You already know answer on that question. 

 

because PB isn't working that well on those games as well, most of these games have no online servers the company takes care of and everyone has to meet there.

 

and battleeye will be similary broken when enough games use it and the cheat providers smell enough money.

 

 

I just said it's not bad, not that it works perfectly. But for example, I play BF1 daily. Each and every single match there are at least 2-3 "GLOBAL MSG" FF bans, but then again the playerbase is like 1000x bigger, thus the more occasional bans.

 

To make server-sided anti-cheat perfect, it requires a lot of time understanding game values and how they could be handled properly. In the other words, mommy ton of testing with cheats turned on and off. You can't make proper server-sided anti-cheat if you don't analyze and compare data when using and when not using a cheat.

 

There is an NTEC script circling around cheating sites that fires a shot each 195ms (which will result in the fastest TTK). It isn't hard to track TTK and STK server-sided, and at the end of each mission calculate the average and compare with a 'fastest human time possible' (don't know how to say it otherwise). Humans misfire, computers don't. There would be an easily recognizable pattern when using certain cheats, such as mentioned one.

 

not entirely, the furts level of serversided anticheat is just banning impossibilities. there are a lot of things humans can by physical restrictions not do, and you just go and find them. and people pulling them off a lot to make sure it was not a luck based action is a clear idication of cheating. but the deeper more hidden stuff, yet thats an own science. But when even fishyfish, who did cheat tried to bring an explanation that the game mechnic doesn't cover, gets unbanned later on, then you can guess how much G1 even understands their own mechanics to let even a blatant cheater with a bad excuse get his account back under "account was stolen" excuses.


Edited by LilyV3, 20 March 2017 - 06:35 AM.

Posted Image
Who is Lily and Honey Lily (ღ˘⌣˘ღ) ♫・*:.。. .。.:*
Check out her Music (different genres): Lily Lily - Burning Night Scarlet Rose Dead End
百合の咲く丘で Sacrifice

#67
mynd

mynd

    Ascended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4239 posts
  • Joined 26-January 12

Fairfight is fine.  As for the false bans, they've been a very tiny percentage of the total bans.  Also, the reversed bans didn't mean those people weren't cheating, it was just possible they could have been flagged by a ruleset that wasn't reliable.  MANY OF THE PLAYERS BANNED AND HAD THEIR BANS REVERSED WERE IN FACT CHEATING.

 

Just annoying so many try to discredit FF when it has done so much good.  It's really only the cheaters and their friends that thrash it so hard.

 

All that said, no one anti-cheat is enough on its own.  I like what I've read and heard about BattleEye.  Worth a shot if RG can find enough change in their abandoned break room couch to afford it.



#68
Tigrix

Tigrix

    Respected

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • Joined 20-August 14

Fairfight is fine.  As for the false bans, they've been a very tiny percentage of the total bans.  Also, the reversed bans didn't mean those people weren't cheating, it was just possible they could have been flagged by a ruleset that wasn't reliable.  MANY OF THE PLAYERS BANNED AND HAD THEIR BANS REVERSED WERE IN FACT CHEATING.

 

Just annoying so many try to discredit FF when it has done so much good.  It's really only the cheaters and their friends that thrash it so hard.

 

All that said, no one anti-cheat is enough on its own.  I like what I've read and heard about BattleEye.  Worth a shot if RG can find enough change in their abandoned break room couch to afford it.

Agreed - FF does work and cheaters would benefit the most by discrediting that fact and hoping it'd be switched off same as PB was.
FF is just such an extremely slow process and since FF is a server-side analytical tool we badly need a client-sided anti-cheat and definitely the games i've played that uses BE has been really good experiences.

At this point, I'm wondering though ... is there even any staff? or are these servers running by an auto-maintenance reboot? ... the G1 silence, - is deafening.


Edited by Tigrix, 20 March 2017 - 11:01 AM.

https://www.youtube....h?v=STpXy7gXzC4

Being online doesn't mean you're suddenly not responsible for who you are. Embarrassing, threatening, harassing, attacking and insulting - based on gender, race, nationality or simple difference of opinion? ...This shows who you are as a person, sitting behind the monitor. You think nobody will care? Think again.

The age of Cancer is over. The dawn of Justice has come.


#69
UubeNubeh DaWog

UubeNubeh DaWog

    Elite

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1933 posts
  • Joined 19-August 12

Agreed - FF does work and cheaters would benefit the most by discrediting that fact and hoping it'd be switched off same as PB was.
FF is just such an extremely slow process and since FF is a server-side analytical tool we badly need a client-sided anti-cheat and definitely the games i've played that uses BE has been really good experiences.

People trying to discredit the system is actually worse in games like BF1/BF4 even when these games were the source of the FF SDK leak people are more ignorant of FF there then I've ever seen.
People are confident they can pinpoint one moment where they think FF got them banned when it doesn't work on an instant action system. As well as going on about how long they play a being dedicated as a lot of mommy any cheater could say and the larger playerbase only helps them because there are more sheep than people who actually understand what FF is capable of and its systemic responses to people.

The amount of garbage posting in the BF false ban threads and lack of people who have any idea how it works is actually concerning as a whole.

Edited by UubeNubeh DaWog, 20 March 2017 - 08:00 PM.

I'm actually done with this mess. Just make me a forum mod so we can have SOMEONE with some competence around here.


#70
アリア

アリア

    Conscript

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 341 posts
  • Joined 27-October 14

People trying to discredit the syste! actually worse in games like BF1/BF4 even when these games were the source of the FF SDK leak people are more ignorant of FF there then I've ever seen.
People are confident they can pinpoint one moment where they think FF got them banned when it doesn't work on an instant action system. As well as going on about how long they play a being dedicated as a lot of mommy any cheater could say and the larger playerbase only helps them because there are more sheep than people who actually understand what FF is capable of and its systemic responses to people.

The amount of garbage posting in the BF false ban threads and lack of people who have any idea how it works is actually concerning as a whole.


You do know battlefield 4 server admins can ban players by fairfight?

cnHtW4P.jpg


#71
UubeNubeh DaWog

UubeNubeh DaWog

    Elite

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1933 posts
  • Joined 19-August 12

You do know battlefield 4 server admins can ban players by fairfight?

Just like any admin can ban some one for anything what so ever without a reason?

Is every ban by ff a guise for an admin to ban whoever they want again? I thought we got past this already.

Edited by UubeNubeh DaWog, 20 March 2017 - 07:59 PM.

I'm actually done with this mess. Just make me a forum mod so we can have SOMEONE with some competence around here.


#72
❌❌❌

❌❌❌

    Elite

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1387 posts
  • Joined 28-September 16

Just like any admin can ban some one for anything what so ever without a reason?

Is every ban by ff a guise for an admin to ban whoever they want again? I thought we got past this already.

just the simple fact that g1 was telling us that ff was only for cheaters yet still used it to ban for other offences is enough to keep the distrust going

 

im not saying g1 bans anyone who looks at them funny, but the precedent has been set and its not that far from lying about the ban reason to not having a a ban reason and making one up

 

also allowing sylim free reign didnt help 


 
                                                                          
 _|_|_|     _|      _|   _|       _|   _|       _|   _|      _|   _|_|_|    
 _|     _|     _|  _|     _|_|    _|   _|_|    _|     _|  _|     _|      _|  
 _|_|_|          _|       _|  _|  _|   _|  _|  _|       _|        _|        _|  
 _|     _|     _|  _|     _|    _|_|   _|    _|_|     _|  _|     _|      _|  
 _|_|_|     _|      _|   _|       _|   _|       _|   _|      _|   _|_|_|    
                                                                          
                                                                          

 


#73
Tiggs

Tiggs

    Supertroll!

  • Administrators
  • -5171 posts
  • Joined 21-July 11

We're not saying no to a client side anti-cheat at all. We've interviewed a few and haven't made a determination at this time. FairFight can be slow at times but I think we'd all agree that it's better to be slow and accurate over quick with a higher rate of false positives. FairFight was automated right after we turned off PunkBuster and we check it often to make sure things are running properly. 


Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for thou art crunchy and go well with ketchup!


#74
UubeNubeh DaWog

UubeNubeh DaWog

    Elite

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1933 posts
  • Joined 19-August 12

just the simple fact that g1 was telling us that ff was only for cheaters yet still used it to ban for other offences is enough to keep the distrust going

 

im not saying g1 bans anyone who looks at them funny, but the precedent has been set and its not that far from lying about the ban reason to not having a a ban reason and making one up

 

also allowing sylim free reign didnt help 

 

Except everyone claims they never cheated.(99.99%)

Except they only stated clearly that FF was for cheaters only recently, after all these other offense bans.

 

If we were going backwards the "precedent" would have been set, but its the community going backwards on everything G1 says/does.

 

How many people were banned by Sylim unjustly?

He rustled people good by acting how a lot of the community acts.

 

 

 

We're not saying no to a client side anti-cheat at all. We've interviewed a few and haven't made a determination at this time. FairFight can be slow at times but I think we'd all agree that it's better to be slow and accurate over quick with a higher rate of false positives. FairFight was automated right after we turned off PunkBuster and we check it often to make sure things are running properly. 

 

So its safe to say its still on auto? Just cruising in the school slow zone?


Edited by UubeNubeh DaWog, 20 March 2017 - 09:20 PM.

I'm actually done with this mess. Just make me a forum mod so we can have SOMEONE with some competence around here.


#75
Tiggs

Tiggs

    Supertroll!

  • Administrators
  • -5171 posts
  • Joined 21-July 11

 

So its safe to say its still on auto? Just cruising in the school slow zone?

 

Yes it's still on Auto, we haven't turned that off. 


Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for thou art crunchy and go well with ketchup!


#76
SkittyM

SkittyM

    Supreme

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7250 posts
  • Joined 20-June 11

Yes it's still on Auto, we haven't turned that off. 

 

I'm curious even though i know you probably wont say anything about it.  But is fairfight monitoring consistent across all district types, or does social have some kind of special rule set?


FVjIqxO.pngCAZ550X.png?1
 [<GM>HEXodus] Whisper: Help, I've fallen and i cant get up!


#77
digitaldeath

digitaldeath

    Conscript

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 127 posts
  • Joined 11-February 17

I'm curious even though i know you probably wont say anything about it.  But is fairfight monitoring consistent across all district types, or does social have some kind of special rule set?

What statistics would fairfight be able to monitor in social? o.0

 

 

We're not saying no to a client side anti-cheat at all. We've interviewed a few and haven't made a determination at this time. FairFight can be slow at times but I think we'd all agree that it's better to be slow and accurate over quick with a higher rate of false positives. FairFight was automated right after we turned off PunkBuster and we check it often to make sure things are running properly. 

 

 

I really hope BattlEye is one of the considerations. From what I have heard, that is by far the best anti-cheat around.

 

 

 


Edited by digitaldeath, 20 March 2017 - 10:03 PM.


#78
Tiggs

Tiggs

    Supertroll!

  • Administrators
  • -5171 posts
  • Joined 21-July 11

I'm curious even though i know you probably wont say anything about it.  But is fairfight monitoring consistent across all district types, or does social have some kind of special rule set?

 

 

It's consistent across all districts. If you're asking because people claim "I was standing in Social and got banned by FairFight", that happens because of a ban delay.  It does not ban exactly at the exact moment a player is flagged for violating rule set(s). 


Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for thou art crunchy and go well with ketchup!


#79
Ignas / qsn

Ignas / qsn

    Elite

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1624 posts
  • Joined 16-September 14

It's consistent across all districts. If you're asking because people claim "I was standing in Social and got banned by FairFight", that happens because of a ban delay. It does not ban exactly at the exact moment a player is flagged for violating rule set(s).

What about Yasori?

I'm bad 24/7.


#80
❌❌❌

❌❌❌

    Elite

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1387 posts
  • Joined 28-September 16

Except everyone claims they never cheated.(99.99%)

Except they only stated clearly that FF was for cheaters only recently, after all these other offense bans.

 

If we were going backwards the "precedent" would have been set, but its the community going backwards on everything G1 says/does.

 

How many people were banned by Sylim unjustly?

He rustled people good by acting how a lot of the community acts.

 

 

 

 

So its safe to say its still on auto? Just cruising in the school slow zone?

creating a name and shame list of cheaters and then slipping in other bans with no differentiation seems dishonest to me, especially since it then took another year and half from ff implementation for them to "clearly" state that ff was for cheats - i'm sure you remember the dozens of threads fighting about whether ff was manual or automatic

 

i dont know of any specific false bans from sylim but i've been silenced for complaining in /d after he cost my team a mission

 

sylim "acting how a lot pf the community acts" is crazy unprofessional, as a gm hes not a volunteer hes a paid employee and all of his actions reflect on the company

 

havent seen the guy in months so the issue is moot i suppose


 
                                                                          
 _|_|_|     _|      _|   _|       _|   _|       _|   _|      _|   _|_|_|    
 _|     _|     _|  _|     _|_|    _|   _|_|    _|     _|  _|     _|      _|  
 _|_|_|          _|       _|  _|  _|   _|  _|  _|       _|        _|        _|  
 _|     _|     _|  _|     _|    _|_|   _|    _|_|     _|  _|     _|      _|  
 _|_|_|     _|      _|   _|       _|   _|       _|   _|      _|   _|_|_|    
                                                                          
                                                                          

 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users